When did Western Europe become wealthier than Eastern Europe?

Lol who the fuck thinks Portugal is in western Europe

Literally everyone.

Breakdown of trade. For the southern part the emergence of the Turks as a major imperial power, Balkans and Hungary started lagging behind especially when the plague hit(it was very much comparable to Western Europe up to the 13th century when the west started advancing, and region started declining which was exacerbated by the Ottoman conquest).
As for the lands of the Rus (not just Russia) it was always poorer.
Of course a big gap was created by the industrial revolution. And another one was created by implementation of Communism and 5 decades of it.
The EU single market, NOTE, NOT THE EU ITSELF, has finally started to decrease the gap. One doesn't need to lose in order for someone else to gain.
t. Friedman enthusiast.

>it's west of the centre of the continent
>therefore it's in the west

If Portugal isn't considered western then there is no reason why Czech republic or Estonia should be in the same "eastern" group as Albania or Romania.

So how come Russia never became that conduit between East and West? This always confused me. Why bother with ships when you can saddle up a wagon and go over the steppes which, by the way, are flat.

Winter and raiders, probably

But Czech Republic isn't wealthier than Portugal, or at least I can't find source on that

Ships are faster and carry more

Albania is considered Southern European friendo

Because Russia didn't start colonize Siberia before the late 16th century, and traversing Siberia is not fucking easy. I read somewhere that it's near impossible to make highways so that today the only connection is by railroads.
Also, shipping was always cheaper, safer and faster.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

5 fucking seconds on google.

HDI isn't wealth.
And the latest data from your GDP wikipedia link clearly shows Portugal higher than the Czech Republic.

except the EU has allowed the big 4 economies of europe to dominate and suppress the rest of europe.

>the latest data from your GDP wikipedia link clearly shows Portugal higher than the Czech Republic
No it doesn't.

1204

Right. I was checking nominal.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
What is the difference between the two? Honestly I have no idea.

Turkic invasions, Persian invasions, Mongol Invasions, Hun invasion, communism. West Europe didn't have to deal with any of that shit. They were free to colonize and do whatever.

Nominal is useful and PPP is toilet paper.

Yes, with it's regulations. The EU is a blessing and a curse. A tool that could be used for prosperity and for geopolitical power projection and domination.
The EU single market has increased the living standard of the Eastern European members, however only to an extent, because the over regulation from the European Commission has upset the market balance in favor of the big 4.

PPP accounts for purchasing power, so it's the more accurate one (outside of communist countries like Belarus at least).

Well which is it? Is the Czech Republic really more wealthy than Portugal?

>it's another "americans tell europeans about europe" episode

PPP is what matters. Nominal is dick measuring, PPP is the living standard (or at least a much better measure of the living standard)

So, like, people in Portugal do make more money than in the Czech Republic, but they have to spend more proportionately to their wages, is that it?

Yes and so is Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania and Estonia apparently. Point is Eastern and Western Europe are hardly homogenous groups.

I don't buy into the overregulation meme.

Also, why is the word written with a space inbetween?

Yes.

Thanks.
t. concerned Yuropoor

Has this board become so degenerately retarded it doesn't even know what the silk road is?

This board was a mistake

I autocorrected it because i got the little wiggly line.
It's a problem, mostly because it's used to stifle countries who's main goal is to catch up, because it serves as a barrier to entry protecting those who are already established in the market. It's often pushed as being the common good, a more green Europe, environmental friendliness. But it increases to costs that companies in former communist member or potential member states face.
For example, something i've read in the news yesterday about an industrial bread producer in Serbia that was shut down. Serbia as a candidate adopts EU regulations (not all at once, but at a pace), and the company will have to shut down, they were making a name for themselves by having really cheap bread, but it didn't use the right type of flour.
Not like the product was toxic on unhealthy, it was just not up to the standards set arbitrarily in Brussels.

What the fuck does the silk road have anything to do with Russia

It's not set arbitrarily, but there should be different programs based on the development level of the countries

Roughly around the Fourth Crusade. The amount that wealth that went into the West after the sack of Constantinople was enormous, shifted a lot of power towards the West and sparked the development of some protocapitalist practices, mainly among the Venetians that set up the rise of Western dominance over the world in the years to come.

>what is the Byzantine Empire
>what is the Kievan Rus state

Yeah, that's what they mean with the new rhetoric of a EU in two speeds. It's a way to solve this problem of the EU.

Fourth Crusade was truly a mistake.

On the bright side it probably helped kickstart the Renaissance by moving a bunch of scholars to the West

>Kievan Rus
Weird, I don't hear the Kievan Rus being mentioned much when it comes to wealth in the period. Could you elaborate a bit, user?

Renaissance shouldn't have been needed if the Byzantines hadn't died in the first place.

>I autocorrected it because i got the little wiggly line.
No, I think you wrote it correctly as per standard English. I just disagree that this should be standard English.

>it was just not up to the standards set arbitrarily in Brussels.
Industry standards are a normal thing countries do. Every country does it, to the same extent that Brussels does, even, except that in the EU the industry standards of all 28 states have for a large part been replaced by EU industry standards. This is actually the very reason why it's the EU setting those standards, rather than the member states.
This is also actually necessary for the single market to function. Imagine you had to repackage a bottle of milk every time it passed a border - intraeuropean trade would become much more inefficient.

They are also not arbitrarily chosen. The ones that stem from Brussels itself tend to be those wanted by consumer protection lobbyists or those that the industry demands to work more efficiently. Ideologically motivated industry standards are extremely rare, because those tend to have the opposite effect a MoP wants: it makes people butthurt and is an easy target for complaints, with no tangible gain for anyone involved, except the ideologists, and they're harder to gain majorities for than pragmatic laws.
People often bring up seemingly silly industry standard laws such as Brussels saying that a fruit needs to have these measurements, but especially those are always petitioned by the industry to lower costs, because they actually have useful real-world implications.
In this case, the motivation would be to lower costs through being able to fit more of a kind of fruit into standardized boxes, which allows you to fit more into a truck, which makes you need to do less trips to transport one charge of fruits, which lowers the fuel required, which is why there's more money left to do other things with at the end of the day.

>Hun invasion

well Huns did rekt Germanics

Good post. I was simplifying and in that i overlooked some stuff.
Yes, reduces transaction costs.
Also, i tend to type hastily so when i see the line i just autocorrect it as a reflex.
I still believe the EU should regulate less, and of course, lobbyist want the regulation that benefits them.

Define "wealth." Material wealth? Emotional wealth? Spiritual wealth?

material wealth you cuck

>asks why land trade with Asia wasn't more common
>gets mad when the silk road gets brought up

Russia did actually trade with Central Asia. It just wasn't as extensive or competitive as Portuguese trade. Look up Anthony Jenkins on and Muscovy Company. English dude was in Bukhara in the mid 16th century

When the Romans started stealing everything that wasn't nailed down.

Sometime around the 10th/12th century

That's when France and Germany(HRE) surpassed the eastern Empire in wealth and cultural prosperity, not to mention Italy which was always wealthy

the empire declined while the west started building grand castles and cathedrals and writing master pieces like the divine comedy, this part of Europe has been the richest and most prosperous part of the world ever since

plus the backward islamic savages forever ruined middle east, the formerly most prosperous part of the world

It's not just west of center, it's the western-most nation of mainland Europe.

if you talk about peasants and subsistence farming then those living in the East especially Russia always lived shittier than on West because climate. If you talk about towns East was the remotest from centres of trade and culture. Think about shittier region in your country, sure it won't be around capital (unless Germany for other reasons).

What? The first time western Europe got the spotlight was with Rome. And even then in the Roman Empire the most prosperous parts were Greece, Anatolia and Egypt.

I' not the guy asking the question and I wasn't mad. Silk road was an old thing done by tribes across Asia, Russia as a state has very little to do with that.

>Anthony Jenkins on and Muscovy Company
Cool stuff, thanks
>people were trying to discover the northeastern way while the portuguese found the southern way
Pretty cool, proves people weren't idiots back then

When Eastern Roman Empire has fallen under muslim control